What does 'bright' mean?

[HeartofAss]

I'm not English, help me out. I'm confused about what 'bright' means.

I thought it meant clever, but here are a few things I've seen on mumsnet:

• "My DD is very bright but she never would have passed the 11+"
• "He is often described as very bright, but his IQ is actually quite low."
• "My dd is a bright child (not exceptionally so, I think, but definitely intelligent), but she seems to have a lot of trouble getting work finished at school. Her teachers have been telling me she's slow since she was in nursery"
• "I too have a bright child who isn’t achieving at school (besides reading)."
• "All children are bright, he might not be academically bright but there will be other areas where he'll shine"
• "My 8 year old is extremely bright but dyslexic."
• "My ds is very bright (cat scores of 136), but we didn't tutor and he isn't having much success in the 11+ exam"

It seems to mean something a bit like intelligent, but not quite the same thing and definitely not the same thing as doing well at school?

What is it that children do that would be 'bright', if it isn't being quick or clever or good academically or having a high IQ?

I have three kids, all capable at school and will do well, but I would only really describe one as "bright" in that she really processes what's going on around her, takes stuff in and stores it for later, can take something from one context and apply it to another, and is generally whip smart. She will not do as well as her sister, who learns by rote exceptionally well and will do very well in exams, but isn't that engaged with her work in a lot of subjects and doesn't love learning like her sister. Their brother is too young to have him truly pinned down, but his focus is so poor atm that he's just not always with it enough for me to think of him as bright.

I guess I'd use it to mean "switched on" rather than clever, I think you can be clever without being bright.

It's generally pretty easy to know if they are at top of their year group

Primary-teachers tend to be pretty keen to tell you and the child also knows they are finding the work easier than everyone else /getting extension work

Secondary - they are in top set and getting top marks

(Based on my experience/my son's)

It's generally pretty easy to know if they are at top of their year group

But how?
In my dc primary class there are about 10 kids that are academically bright doing the harder challenges in maths and English, some are middle of the road and several kids with SEN. Out of the 10 who are doing very well, who's top, how would any parent know? They are the top third, who is the cleverest if there is a cleverest? At secondary it is obvious with sets and exams. I have seen many high achieving primary kids drop in secondary, why is this?

Yes, I was always top in class (and indeed nationally sometimes), but I think bright would be the wrong word for me as a child.

I'd be busy absorbing/contextualising new information to engage, ask questions etc whilst a less high performer would just get the concept and engage with it at face value.

So a child might always engage well at a regular level but then never automatically connect it to conceptual learning to access higher level work.

To me, “bright” just means intelligent. That said, you don’t need to excel in every subject to be bright.

I used to know a boy who didn’t apply himself at school and did poorly in most subjects, but he turned out to have an aptitude for engineering. He ended up with a first-class degree and a very good career. So, in some ways he was definitely bright.

I guess when the child is finding the work easier than all the other 10, consistently finishing it earlier and then helping the "bright 10' with their work or needing to be given further extension work?
My son/I both performed just as well at secondary so I couldn't tell you why some drop in performance but certainly even at primary it was pretty obvious we stood out even among the table of 'bright" children

With the greatest of respect, you don't sound that bright...

sharp and quick witted = bright
Academically clever = intelligent

You can be both, you can be either, you can be neither

All state school children are bright and the ones that aren't are geniuses full of untapped potential.

Private = Dim.

A lot of children/ people don't have an equal spread of strengths, so parent A might say their child is bright because they're good at reading and parent B might say their child is bright because they're good at maths. A lot of children can be above average or bright in some area, but not necessarily across the board, so it's a term that a lot of parents can apply.

Both my DCs are dyslexic so find reading and writing hard, but have strengths in maths, and are good at joining up ideas and are generally curious. DS2 definitely isn't "academic" (yet?) but is quite sharp witted. He generally comes across as fairly average, but he uses his strengths like a very visual mind to quickly adapt and compensate around his dyslexic weaknesses. On one of the timed tasks on his dyslexia assessment, he came out in the top 2% of the population of one of the skills tested. That's a bit specific, but in general situations he will look more average and I look more like I've got mum-goggles on. To come out with average outcomes, he's already thinking in creative ways. Then there's areas that he is unequivically strong in.

From working with children across a broad age range for years in formal and more casual settings, I'd say that being bright was about curiosity, and learning well in a broad sense. A bright child may or may not be academic. Academic children are often bright, but some are good at utilising information in an academic way, but not necessarily that original and creative in their own way, that a less academic, but "bright" child might be.

MN will be biased as it attracts a literate, decently educated audience and is above average. Well educated mothers are one of the strongest indicators in how well educated a child will be. If a MN child is struggling, it has a higher than average chance that those difficulties will be investigated and managed, rather than the child being underestimated in their potential. There will be a lot of "bright" children of MNers

I think what is valued in primary school is not necessarily the same as secondary.
My DS barely scraped a 4 for spelling /writing but a high 5 for comprehension was put in top English sets and we were told don't worry he is in the right place . He really thrived on Secondary because school recognised his intelligence

What does bright mean?

I don't know, but I don't think it's changed since you asked the same question a year ago.

And there’s also “wise” which for me, has a different meaning from intelligent/bright. I think to be wise, you need common sense and good judgement which usually takes many years of experience to acquire. But a child can still be “wise beyond their years”.

Bright is just intelligent but a vaguer more colloquial term. However, all children have a greater capacity to assimilate information than adults and so all children seem bright to their parents. So if your child is actually very intelligent and doing very well at school then saying 'yeah, she seems quite bright' doesn't seem too boastful and if they are not very book smart you can still get away with saying 'he's bright but not interested in school' and people will smile indulgently.

As far as 'top of the class' goes it's pretty obvious. At nursery another parent complained to me that the nursery wasn't teaching our 4yos how to read and write, but DD had started writing over a year earlier aged 3 (taught by nursery not taught by me). Getting a full description of a lesson plan when you ask your 6 year old what they learnt at school today (then hearing other parents complaining that very thing hasn't been taught). Always getting an end of term Headteacher's Award for working well (Star of the week was shared out among the class, Headmaster Awards were for academic performance). Being told that your 9yo DD is in the top reading group of 4 in a year of 90 kids and that they are well ahead of the next group down. Getting 'exceeds expectations' in all her Y6 SATs. Being asked every year for your DD to do the maths challenge/maths olympiad at secondary school. Being told by your DC that they are bullied for being a 'try hard' who does well in exams at secondary. Constantly being told by your child who is top in tests at school, them or their best friend / mortal enemy who is also regularly top of the class (the brighter they are the earlier this starts and is the main way you know TBH).

I think it is often said by parents who don't spend much time around other children. They are genuinely impressed at their child's rate of change and progress, but don't actually have anything to compare it to. I've seen a lot more people describe their eldest or only as bright, compared to the younger ones - because at that point they at least have a sample of two.

Bright is just intelligent but a vaguer more colloquial term. However, all children have a greater capacity to assimilate information than adults and so all children seem bright to their parents. So if your child is actually very intelligent and doing very well at school then saying 'yeah, she seems quite bright' doesn't seem too boastful and if they are not very book smart you can still get away with saying 'he's bright but not interested in school' and people will smile indulgently.

I think this is the best summary

I would assume it meant they were in the top 10% for intelligence.

There are lots of other words to describe other strengths but "bright" used in this context means intelligent.

Bright to me equals intelligent.

Lots of the examples in the OP are children who are intelligent but don’t test well e.g. dyslexic. A dyslexic child with the correct adaptations can do extremely well but will likely fail without support. My dd is like this, she is autistic and dyspraxic. She cannot write legibly and so her early primary school reports were dire. Since she has received support and been encouraged to use IT she is now a high achiever.
But bright is normally used to describe an intelligent child.

The examples you have quoted above show that some of those parents do not know what it means either.

I would equate bright with being quick and smart in the moment - a child who is able to take in a concepts which are presented to them and is capable of problem solving. Not necessarily academically advanced as that requires long term recall and joining up skills aquired over a length of time. So a bright child might be able to work out a series puzzles presented to them, but not necessarily write an exam answer a month later on the theory behind the puzzles. However it is possible to be bright and academically talented at the same time.

@HeartofAss

"My 8 year old is extremely bright but dyslexic."

Dyslexia does not mean unintelligent.

Ps Einstein was dyslexic.

I am no Einstein but have 10 gcses including 8 A grades, 4 A levels including A grades, a degree and a good Professional career and I have dyslexia, I am certainly not stupid.

Everyone I know who uses the word “bright” means above average academically.
They /we use it in a context where “intelligent” would seem either too formal or - more usually - too boastful.
Considered boastful to say, “my daughter is intelligent” but “my daughter is bright” takes it down a notch. It’s slightly self effacing I think - as long as you say bright and not very bright.
I’d say bright is the child who gets all 7s in their GCSEs - but not 9s.

The American equivalent would be smart.

"Bright" is used in the US as well. It's a synonym for smart. It means intelligent.

Some examples used in sayings:

"She's as bright as a new penny." (She is intelligent.)

"He's not the brightest light on the porch." (He is not so intelligent.)